What is in a name?

How does government define the term 'broadband'? For years the term was defined solely quantitatively. Now that the FCC has asked for comments on defining and creating metrics to measure broadband, there are some proposals to include more than mere quantitative criteria such as:

Network neutral operation (no blocking legal material, no throttling of connections...)
Ability to watch streaming video, HD video, without noticeable lag
Ability to play games with low latency

There are numerous suggestions, which can be seen here. Defining the term broadband is important, and there is consensus on this point. However the number of stakeholders with a vested interest in defining broadband may not be able to reach an agreeable definition.

The process that the FCC has started does at least allow for input into the decision making process from any interested parties. For years many broadband access advocates decried the early definition of broadband as out of date and unrepresentative of the real world.

For my own part, I do wish broadband access was available for everyone, but realize many factors influence download and upload speeds that users experience during Internet usage. Yet it is my opinion that we should keep it simple and reach consensus on the following core points to define broadband.

1) Download and upload speeds as realized between the user and the ISP local office/node should be measured by the FCC. ISPs advertise certain speeds, but often cannot in reality deliver those speeds outside of the local area. Admittedly I am unaware of exactly what speeds are needed for popular activities such as watching streaming video and VOIP. I would suggest that the speed requirements for both functions be a basis to define broadband.

2)Data that can be legally accessed, to include websites and P2P networks, will not be blocked by ISPs.

3) Network management is acceptable. An ISP will manage its network as it deems prudent to maintain overall performance to end users and maintain compliance with points 1 and 2.

My recommendations are quite simple and will surely strike a wrong chord with some, but it is an attempt to bring the different stakeholders together on, what I feel, are three core issues that have emerged in the discussion to define broadband.

Pew Internet Survey

The Pew Internet and American Life Project has released their 2009 Home Broadband Adoption Report. This is always an interesting report, especially that Pew has been conducting this research for multiple years. Overall broadband penetration to households has increased to 63%. Which falls in line with the results of a Strategy Analytics' report mentioned at ArsTechnica.

Important figures from the Pew report show those with lower incomes are continuing to adopt broadband Internet access. For household incomes of $20,000 or less the figures jumped from 25% in 2008 to 35% in 2009. For households with an income between $20,000 and $30,000 the number went from 42% in 2008 to 53% in 2009.

On another note, it appears that the cost of broadband Internet access has increased. Areas with little to no competition have higher prices than locations with multiple access providers. Additionally, the Pew report finds that subscribers are paying more for premium services, those services that offer higher speeds for extra money over the basic fee.

One last point, which is hard to do since there are many interesting pieces of information in these reports. It looks as though African-Americans are for a second year in a row behind in broadband Internet access adoption. It might be time to investigate the reasons for this slow adoption rate.

I would suggest anyone interested in broadband Internet access in the US to read these reports from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The reports are full of information and tidbits.

Broadband Internet Access as a Utility

In the past few days there was a renewed push to include broadband Internet access in the list of utilities. Included in most current lists are: electricity, water, sewer, telephone, steam, and natural gas. The perceived importance of broadband Internet access has been echoed by both politicians and academia for some time. (See Prof. Frieden) One need only look at the MuniWiFi projects around the US, or the efforts of local communities to develop fiber networks in their communities.

Recently British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made the comparison that Internet access is as important as access to other utilities (Thanks to Blandin for posting about this). The US included quite a bit of monetary support to increase broadband penetration and access in the US this past February in the stimulus bill. Many times President Obama has signaled that broadband Internet access is essential to the future of the US.

Why not make Internet access a necessity like other utilities? The rhetoric and the mentality are present in many individuals, groups, and communities across the country. Just as other services such as water, electricity, and telephone were included in the list of utilities, so should Internet access.

Of course there is a catch to providing Internet access. Devices are needed to utilize Internet access. Fortunately some relatively inexpensive computers have become available. In cases that these inexpensive computers are out of the means of citizens, a scheme similar to the DTV coupon program should be created.

Further legislation for a US Broadband map

After reading through and hearing some reports that the stimulus plan was including a broadband provision I was, of course, curious to see what that provision contained. Unfortunately the reports that I had heard were only saying that the broadband provision was to spread broadband service to unserved areas of America (not very helpful reports). Which I completely support. However how are 'they' to know who is unserved? Several states have taken upon themselves to conduct a broadband service map. Yet the federal government had not until late last year decided a map was important (see P.L. 110-385 Broadband Data Improvement Act).

In the latest version of the stimulus package available to me, February 10, 2009, there is a provision that again calls for the creation of a US Broadband Map (Title II-Section 201(l)(9 and 10)). This is in conjunction with the Broadband Data Improvement Act passed last year (P.L. 110-385). Granted P.L. 110-385 has not had enough time to full implements. I am rather happy that there is a definite timetable within the stimulus package for release of a broadband map of the United States. Except the time tables do not really match up for funding broadband expansion and release of the map. The stimulus plans says that all funds for the Broadband Technology Opportunities provision are to be dispensed by 2010. However the map has to be release no later than 2 years after the passage of the stimulus plan.

Maybe we are putting the cart before the horse on this one. Perhaps it would be better, or would have been better if the language is not changed, to complete the map first.

Need for broadband policy...

The following story is very well written. It also calls for a national broadband policy for the United States. The idea of a national policy has been in my mind for years, and in some others, perhaps by charging per quantity of data downloaded Americans will see a need for a broadband policy instead of a band-aid policy to keep customers satisfied year by year.

Here is the story

U.S. Broadband Map

H.R. 3919 , Broadband Census Act of America of 2007, sets out to map out the service areas of broadband Internet access across the U.S. In the current language of the bill, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce would collect data down to the 9-digit zip code or census tract level. The bill would also survey consumers as to several aspects of broadband service in their area.

The fact that this bill is now being introduced is a positive step. Positive in that such a broadband inventory can encourage competition by ISPs. The identification of underserved potential customers or wholly ignored areas open to new development could provide a catalyst for increasing broadband Internet access. When broadband Internet access saturation occurs, a broadband map will prove useful to identify further markets open to competition based on prices and speeds available to consumers and businesses.

The bill can also provide information for new residents about services. I know that before I move, typical transitory college student, one of the first questions I ask a landlord is whether broadband Internet access is available. Many times they do not know, and I am left with the duty of going to all the various big name ISPs to see if they offer service in which area. With such a map, a person could cut down the time spent researching for an answer to this question and at the same time see pricing and speed options. (At least the current information for when the map and survey were last conducted, which is to be annually).

Another use for this map is to provide data concerning broadband accessibility, geography, and demography. The data could be used in many imaginative ways. One could be the correlation between broadband accessibility and population income or whether remoteness and low population density are underlying characteristics of communities that do not have access to broadband Internet connectivity.

I would urge that the bill define broadband in terms to the current accepted use of the word. Instead of using the Federal Communication Commission’s 200Kbps speed, I would suggest that a minimum speed in the Mbps, perhaps 5Mbps, be used as a defining characteristic with a separate notation for non-broadband access, say through dial-up access in which speeds are slower than 5Mbps. Of course the 5Mbps was picked at random, but with 10Mbps speeds available in my area, I think 5Mbps would be a nice speed as a minimum.

Net neutrality: my view

Well I have completed reading a lot of information in favor of Net neutraily and oppossed to Net neutrality. As well as the very dry FCC and FTC information. Government documents, what should I have expected.

I think it might be helpful to sum up the fears that both sides to the argument have.
For proponenets of Net neutrality, the fear is that information could be censored or delivered in an untimely manner due to network restrictions on access. I must say that I am also afraid this might happen.

Opponenets to Net neutrality are firm in their belief that Net neutrality will hamper development and innovation as well as the ability of broadband companies to recoup investments. I can see both of these points as well.

An underlying issue for the opponents to Net neutrality is a view that the bandwidth and resources of the Intnernet are approaching a zenith. And from what I have learned from reading the only way to avoid this limitation is to either add bandwidth to the networks connected to the Internet or provide another means to compress and/or prioritize different types of information( i.e. cramming more information into the same cable). Of course the additional bandwidth to networks is expensive since the netowrk cables and devices would need to be upgraded over a larger area and in several more locations. However, if prioritization were allowed, the upgrade could be done in a fewer number of locations and without the expensive additional cables.

Something that I do not understand is that since the emergence of broadband under the Net neutrality system, broadband companies seem to be doing quite well financially with an increasing number of subscribers. Then again, if the growth of devices attached to the network of networks increases, the potential for network shortages of bandwidth are present.

Opponents to Net neutrality have also brought up the point of quality-of-service, QoS. The idea behind QoS is that without Net neutrality, QoS can be implemented and provide better service to the end user. My concern with QoS is that there is no mention of a definition of acceptable QoS standards. For instance I currently pay for the highest tier of download capacity my ISP offers. Yet, when my download speeds drop to 25% of what the potential download speed could be there is no recourse. There is also no way for me to recoup or ask for credit for only partial service. In fact the only time I have gotten credit for network outages, was when Insight Communications' network went down in Illinois. Even then I had to spend several hours on the phone.

For me is the opponents to Net neutrality want to introduce QoS, then the end user needs to have some assurance and recourse when the ISPs are not able to maintain QoS to the end user. Herein is my solution for the Net neutrality debate. Allow the users to have QoS standards, with recourse for violations of those standards. When that is achieved, then allow Net neutrality to fade out for a set period of time. When the time has expired, a reevaluation of the system would need to be conducted if whether the non-Net neutrality Internet is acceptable or not.

During this period of time, as the opponents to Net neutrality hope, the network of networks can be improved and additional bandwidth implemented. One of the key points of opponents to Net neutrality is that Net neutrality will limit investment, innovations, and limit the ability of ISPs to recoup financial investments. This set period of time will allow the ISPs to recoup the investments and also experiment with a U.S. Internet free of Net neutrality.